So I have the Martial Powers book.

[dammitbiscuit]

So, you've stated that there is no material in the book FOR a paladin. However, paladins, swordmages and battle clerics are very martial classes. Most of the feats in the preview list require 'any martial class'. Is there any good stuff in the book that other weapon-wielding classes can USE without being forced to multiclass? (multiclassing, at least, would make you a member of both classes, which would then let you take the feats but only if you don't want to multiclass into a non-martial class)

 

[Lizard]

So, you've stated that there is no material in the book FOR a paladin. However, paladins, swordmages and battle clerics are very martial classes. Most of the feats in the preview list require 'any martial class'. Is there any good stuff in the book that other weapon-wielding classes can USE without being forced to multiclass? (multiclassing, at least, would make you a member of both classes, which would then let you take the feats but only if you don't want to multiclass into a non-martial class)

Well, Paladins and Clerics aren't Martial -- they're Divine. Swordmages are Arcane.

3.5 used 'non class' based prereqs for most feat; with a few rare exceptions, you needed an "ability", not a class -- there were few, if any, "rogue" feats; there were feats which required "Must to precision damage". It was perfectly possible for a Wizard with a BAB of +8 to take Improved Critical (Dagger). Not sure why he WOULD, but he COULD.

4e, on the other hand, silos classes very much, esp WRT powers. Many feats are "Must be THIS CLASS", and powers, of course, are not shared among classes except by multiclassing. So even if you think of a Paladin as being "martial", if it doesn't draw from the Martial power source, there's likely to be nothing in Martial Power for him, except, as you note, via multiclassing. You can't build a character who is a little bit of this and a little bit of that anymore; your class and build (and, no, builds are NOT optional guidelines -- they're hardwired into the system. (Artful Dodger/Brawny Rogue, *Pact Warlock, Implement Choice, etc)) pretty much define the path your character will take for life. You only get choices when WOTC decides to release a new build, and then you start over from level 1 -- for example, I doubt a 2-weapon ranger can EVER learn any of the Ranger powers with the Beast keyword. (If I'm wrong, color me happy.)

 

[Bagpuss]

build (and, no, builds are NOT optional guidelines -- they're hardwired into the system. (Artful Dodger/Brawny Rogue, *Pact Warlock, Implement Choice, etc)

Those aren't builds they are optional Class Features, there is a build for most Class Features, but you are not forced to take a build, just a particular class feature.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

You only get choices when WOTC decides to release a new build, and then you start over from level 1 -- for example, I doubt a 2-weapon ranger can EVER learn any of the Ranger powers with the Beast keyword. (If I'm wrong, color me happy.)

First off, the first official "expansion", in the form of Martial Power, isn't even out yet...so let's not jump to conclusions. Secondly, you're also assuming that a DM won't allow for some re-specing. Thirdly, you're assuming that all of the new powers will only be for one build. It's been specifically said here that while there's only one new build, there are powers for that build and the existing ones as well.

 

[Cadfan]

You can't build a character who is a little bit of this and a little bit of that anymore;

Civil conversation begins with not intentionally saying things you know not to be true.

Its easy to dip between builds, as you well know. The only exceptions are when a power from another build requires a piece of equipment you haven't got (a ranger without an animal companion might not easily be able to use an animal companion related power, for obvious reasons), or when a power from another build requires an attack roll statistic you haven't pumped (wis/cha clerics who didn't pump str might not want str cleric powers, again for obvious reasons).

I mean, you even quoted, in your post, build options that work well together. My brutal scoundrel rogue uses one artful dodger power at the moment simply because he likes the added mobility- brutal scoundrel helps with damage and bashing people, but artful dodger adds mobility, and while my rogue focuses on damage a little more than mobility, that doesn't mean he doesn't care about mobility at all.

I mean, for the love of... implement choice defines "the path your character will take for life"?? Are you crazed? Implement choice mildly affects your career, at best. It makes you slightly more proficient at certain types of powers, and generally in a very indirect way- a wand wizard might be more willing to take powers that attack one foe, then do extra effects to adjacent foes on a hit. A staff wizard might be more willing to use close blasts and bursts, since he's better defended. And an orb wizard will be more interested in powers with saving throws. But that's hardly setting you on a path for life! Its a mild preference, at best! And you can get a second implement at level 11!

The fact that you write these sorts of things make me think that you're not really taking this conversation seriously. To the extent that a good point might be salvaged from the general idea of prefering less siloing to more, its been completely lost in the midst of all the absolutely lunatic specifics you've given.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Uhh...I think you don't understand what he meant. He's saying you can't have a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer anymore, like in 3.x Regardless of whether or not you can mix a single feat from a build, there are often some build specific things going on as well. For example, your choice of Two-blade Ranger vs Archer Ranger affects what Paragon Paths you can take.

Saying everything is massively silo'd goes a bit too far, but there are definite barriers in place to getting into the massive class mixing that 3.x had.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, you've stated that there is no material in the book FOR a paladin. However, paladins, swordmages and battle clerics are very martial classes.

No, in 4E terms they are not "Martial". Martial is a defined term, a specific power source. It does not mean "related to physical combat".

 

[Mad Mac]

No, in 4E terms they are not "Martial". Martial is a defined term, a specific power source. It does not mean "related to physical combat".

This is true, but any feats that boost melee combat without being class specific are potentially useful for Paladins and the like.

 

[Cadfan]

Uhh...I think you don't understand what he meant.

Go back and read his actual words. Not your vision of what his words should have been had he been making a non-insane argument.

The claim that things like implement choice or the selection of "brutal scoundrel" versus "artful dodger" "pretty much define the path your character will take for life" isn't something I made up and attributed to him. Ditto the rest. He's not arguing that you can't make a paladin/ranger/fighter/wizard, he's arguing, quite clearly and with simple, easy to understand words, that you can't even mix a little bit of artful dodger style rogue with brutal scoundrel style rogue. The fact that you explicitly can, and that he must know this because he is not an idiot, enrages me when he chooses to say so anyways.

 

[doppelganger]

Yeah, you can buy from an online company, but you can definately *get* the item on the day it comes street-legal from a store and you are buying, most often, from people who actually care about supporting the hobby.

How can I tell if the people there actually care about supporting the hobby and not caring about being supported by the hobby?